Re: [ARSCLIST] stereo or double mono

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

David Lennick wrote:
> For starters, just listening in mono and stereo should tell you if there's any
> notable difference.
>
> Some labels used to reissue old recordings by playing mono tapes in stereo
> (Atco on LP, London on CD) and those sometimes had a bit of stereo spread (or
> the result of dirty playback heads or unbalanced channels) and sounded pretty
> slushy in mono.

Two other cases may be of interest: Electronically enhanced for stereo 
(which sounded bad either way); and stereo recordings sold as mono.

Suppose the publisher had a good stereo master of a title with a limited 
market. He could publish two versions, the stereo listing for a one 
dollar premium. Or he could publish the same pressing with different 
jackets, thereby keeping the customers who wouldn't pay the stereo 
premium. Complicating matters further, if the title sold the publisher 
might create a monaural master for a repressing so that the same issue 
would be either mono or stereo depending on when it was pressed.

My copy of Westminster's "Flaming Angel" (by Prokofiev) rescued a friend 
from a major problem. He needed it in stereo and his was mono. Though 
mine had the same labels and packaging, it was in stereo.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/